I see vs. I call

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing for 35 years. To "see" a bet is to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two sentences illustrate my point.

To you, someone who has been playing 35 years, "see" means "call." To Jimbo, another poster who has been playing for a long time (not sure how many years), "see" is always followed by "raise."

I guess I don't have a big problem with the word "see" being used as a synonym for call, although I think coming up with a universal language would be beneficial. But allowing "see and raise" seems to pose some problems that aren't easily solved.

-McGee

[lgas]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to reference TV poker, but on the WPT, maybe last week, and amatuer player said "I'll see your bet and raise..." TD ruled it was a string bet, see=call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure he didn't say "I'll call and raise..." ?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
My teachers name was Richard Head, we all called him Dick of course, and he responded openly to being called Dick Head. I think his parents must have hated him to give him that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

They should be tasered. Stun gunned at the very least.

[ChrisRock]

[ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure that this was discussed on an episode of the awesome show "tilt." two african-american poker enthusiasts playing in a backroom disagreed on whether "i see your bet...and raise..." was acceptable betting procedure; the issue was eventually resolved when a firearm was brandished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome reference. So what was the resolution, since 'Tilt' is the tell-all-be-all?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is not to debate whether there are multiple ways to indicate "raise" or "call" or "check," but whether there should be. Personally, I say no. I see no reason why there needs to be ambiguity here. If you wish to raise and you want to indicate your action verbally, say "raise." Same with "call" and "check."

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this problematic. I see no ambiguity at all when a play announces "bump" "take it up" "I See your bet"

To me making those words non-binding because they are not the official words is a great invitation to angle shoot. When my opponent bets and the action is to me I announce "Going up" reach for a large enough stack of chips to raise then wait hoping that he mucks his hand, if he doesn't muck I throw away my hand or simply call.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is not to debate whether there are multiple ways to indicate "raise" or "call" or "check," but whether there should be. Personally, I say no. I see no reason why there needs to be ambiguity here. If you wish to raise and you want to indicate your action verbally, say "raise." Same with "call" and "check."

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this problematic. I see no ambiguity at all when a play announces "bump" "take it up" "I See your bet"

To me making those words non-binding because they are not the official words is a great invitation to angle shoot. When my opponent bets and the action is to me I announce "Going up" reach for a large enough stack of chips to raise then wait hoping that he mucks his hand, if he doesn't muck I throw away my hand or simply call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I once had a floor call on this becausse a non-native English speaker (who now works with psandman) didn't know that bump meant raise. And yes, saying bump was ruled a raise.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is not to debate whether there are multiple ways to indicate "raise" or "call" or "check," but whether there should be. Personally, I say no. I see no reason why there needs to be ambiguity here. If you wish to raise and you want to indicate your action verbally, say "raise." Same with "call" and "check."

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this problematic. I see no ambiguity at all when a play announces "bump" "take it up" "I See your bet"

To me making those words non-binding because they are not the official words is a great invitation to angle shoot. When my opponent bets and the action is to me I announce "Going up" reach for a large enough stack of chips to raise then wait hoping that he mucks his hand, if he doesn't muck I throw away my hand or simply call.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a good point, and one I didn't realize right away. I later posted that I guess I don't have a problem with having multiple words mean the same thing.

However, I still think allowing "see and raise" presents some real difficulties, as I've enumerated.

-McGee

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is not to debate whether there are multiple ways to indicate "raise" or "call" or "check," but whether there should be. Personally, I say no. I see no reason why there needs to be ambiguity here. If you wish to raise and you want to indicate your action verbally, say "raise." Same with "call" and "check."

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this problematic. I see no ambiguity at all when a play announces "bump" "take it up" "I See your bet"

To me making those words non-binding because they are not the official words is a great invitation to angle shoot. When my opponent bets and the action is to me I announce "Going up" reach for a large enough stack of chips to raise then wait hoping that he mucks his hand, if he doesn't muck I throw away my hand or simply call.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a good point, and one I didn't realize right away. I later posted that I guess I don't have a problem with having multiple words mean the same thing.

However, I still think allowing "see and raise" presents some real difficulties, as I've enumerated.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

As I wrote earlier it all should come down to the "and" between the action words. IMO when you put an "and" in your declaration it is a string bet as it indicates 2 seperate actions. The pause between the "see" and the "raise" can certainly cause someone who wasn't experienced or was caught off guard by a phrase that hasn't seen general casino use in decades, to make some sort of play that a good angleshooter could take advantage of.

I don't really care about words that are spoken alone such as "bump" or giving the thumbs up signal to indicate raise. When done in context a player should underdtand what they mean.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing for 35 years. To "see" a bet is to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two sentences illustrate my point.

To you, someone who has been playing 35 years, "see" means "call." To Jimbo, another poster who has been playing for a long time (not sure how many years), "see" is always followed by "raise."

I guess I don't have a big problem with the word "see" being used as a synonym for call, although I think coming up with a universal language would be beneficial. But allowing "see and raise" seems to pose some problems that aren't easily solved.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post McGee, the regional differences Jimmy mentioned accounts for the discrepancy. I also agree that in poker there should be no doubt as to what is binding action and personally have no problem with not considering "see" as any action at all. BTW, been playing 38 years now and hope for 38 more. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Jimbo